After the presentation of the aforesaid, the survey respondents were asked to answer the following question:
"To the best of your understanding, is this service center authorized or not authorized by the Toyota car manufacturer or the importer on its behalf to provide service to Toyota vehicles?
- This service center is authorized by the Toyota vehicle manufacturer or the importer on its behalf to provide service to Toyota vehicles.
- This service center is not authorized by the Toyota vehicle manufacturer or the importer on its behalf to provide service to Toyota vehicles.
- I don't know."
(The repeated spelling mistakes in the plaintiff's name throughout the above quote are in the original - S.G.).
As indicated by the opinion, a significant majority of the survey respondents, at a rate of 70.6%, believed that this service center is indeed authorized by the Toyota car manufacturer or the importer on its behalf.
Subsequently, the survey respondents were asked to answer an open question and explain the basis for their answer, i.e., why they believed that the garage was licensed or not licensed by Toyota/its importer.
Of the respondents who mistakenly thought that it was indeed an authorized Toyota/importer garage - 66% explained their answer by saying - "an authorized garage is listed in the advertisement", 13% answered that they thought so due to the use of the plaintiff's logo, and 8% responded that the use of the words "parallel imports" caused them to think that the garage was an authorized garage of the plaintiff.
- As stated, the defendants also submitted counter-professional evidence in the field of surveys. The expert opinion on behalf of the defendants, Katz, presented a different survey that was conducted by him and gave rise to results and conclusions contrary to the expert's opinion.
In the first question in this survey, the respondents were asked what their age was, and in the second question, the respondents were presented with a picture of an advertisement of the defendant's garage, in which the survey was also used on behalf of the prosecution's expert, without the part that includes the domain name and telephone numbers.